In a world with an intellectual history of seven thousand years behind it, where do Pakistanis stand, what are they doing, what do they aspire to be, and what ought they to be doing? This Blog takes Notes of all of that ...

Monday, July 29, 2013

Morality
and fundamental rights are the first principles which must take precedence over
everything, be it ideologies, religions, systems of government, on the one
hand, or elites, aristocracies, theocracies, bureaucracies, dictatorships and
democracies, on the other. That is the lesson that human civilization teaches
us, and without which a society based on co-existence cannot exist.

It
is the failure to learn this that explains the emergence, persistence and
spread of world terrorism nearly unprecedented in the history of violent
movements. Presently al-Qaeda, Taliban and the likes of them are its
manifestations. Certain characteristics single this terrorism out as the most
atrocious human activity on our earth.

This
terrorism has a clearly stated and demonstrated political agenda that
transcends frontiers and peoples. Not only does it envisage a theocratic world
government, it is hell-bent upon making it happen at any cost. It is using all
violent methods, those already in use and those never dreamt of, to achieve its
goal.

This
terrorism is not confined to a specific geographical area. Its members,
activists, partners, supporters, and sympathizers are scattered all over the
inhabited earth. In the past, they were usually concentrated in this or that
specific location. This time they exist almost everywhere.

This
terrorism enjoys wider backing of supporters and sympathizers all over the
world not only in the Muslim population but also among those who favor
targeting the centers of economic and technological powers they hate.

This
terrorism believes, both ideologically and strategically, that the ends
justifies the means. It has repudiated all values humans have come to hold as
most precious: Love for each other, regard for human life, freedom of
conscience, freedom of professing and practicing religion, the right to pursue happiness,
tolerance - all sacrificed at the altar of its war.

This
terrorism has unleashed a war which knows no rules. How impressive of us that
if war could not be ruled out completely, at least we made some humane rules to
be followed by warring parties, such as not targeting civilians. But this
terrorism kills everyone including children and women. It even uses them as its
blasting instruments.

Last
but not least, this terrorism is the friend of none, and the enemy of all. In
the past, such movements tried to win supporters. It has no such concern of
earning friends, maybe because it has its supporters already on its side or it
believes it is the only right path. Its theocratic agenda is narrow but it has
no organized clerical authority to bring uniformity to differences tearing at
its own ranks. That is why frequent internal fighting is common. It may indeed
be destined, due to differences of opinion or practice, to come down hard on
its own supporters and sympathizers in its puritanical countdown. This is its
internal dialectic.

This
makes this terrorism callously ideological, mercilessly inhuman, and
dangerously destructive. And all that in the name of faith! It poses a unique
threat to human civilization. It threatens to enslave free humanity once again.
Forget the age of physical slavery, or economic enslavement by ruling cliques.
With this terrorism raging from Pakistan
and Afghanistan
to Iraq,
Somalia
and Yemen,
enters the specter of a new age of theocratic slavery. A new slavery of the
human conscience is on the top of this terrorism’s agenda.

It
was money which freed men from physical slavery by enabling them to meet their
needs independently of their masters, but it was the physical person whom money
freed; his mind and soul were already free. This terrorism attempts to enslave
one’s mind and soul. It is intent upon seizing political power which controls
the freeing power of money also, and thus invests immense power in the hands of
political masters, to enslave bodies as well as minds and souls.

Those
who back this terrorism think it will enslave only others, by forcing them to
embrace its truth, but they are mistaken. By its very nature, this terrorism is
nihilist, directed towards excluding everyone and everything different from it.
Thus, it is destined to annihilate its own self in the end. This terrorism like
a black hole will gulp everything to nothingness. It is already killing and
destroying indiscriminately.

The
apologists of this terrorism blame the US and NATO presence in Afghanistan as
the cause of its destructive aggression. In Pakistan this terrorism targets
anyone and anything ever said to have any relation with the US or NATO.
Also, it is this terrorism which wreaked 9/11. 9/11 did not beget it. Finally,
is it US presence in Somalia and Yemen that justifies this terrorism’s playing
havoc there?

We
must face what this terrorism really means, if we are to do justice to it and
to ourselves also. Only then, will humanity be able to fight the new slavery of
mind and soul for which this terrorism is prepared to bomb the whole world to
ashes!

Saturday, July 27, 2013

The
term of Riyasati Ashrafiya is slowly gaining currency in Pakistan. It’s not
merely a term; it connotes a phenomenon, a malady, a dilemma the state of
Pakistan is afflicted with. That the institution of state in Pakistan has been
captured by various elite classes of Pakistan, and they use it to plunder the
wealth the citizens of Pakistan create. That has given rise to a new class,
Riyasati Ashrafiya.

On July
26, 2013, the Business Recorder published a lengthy op-ed, “An elitist Pakistan” authored by Huzaima Bukhari and Dr. Ikramul Haq.

To explain the phenomena of loot and plunder in Pakistan, the authors have accepted /
used the term, Riyasati Ashrafiya. As its English equivalent for the Urdu
Riyasati Ashrafiya, they coined the term, State Elites.

I
wrote them: I have seriously thought about it, and then decided to use the
English term, State Aristocracy, for Urdu term, Riyasati Ashrafiya. In the first
instance, I would like to use and popularize the Urdu term, Riyasati Ashrafiya,
in English also; however, on second thought, in English I would prefer
Aristocracy, instead of State Elite. The term, State Elite or State Elites,
does not communicate the full meaning and significance of the Urdu term,
Riyasati Ashrafiya.

They
replied: I am in full agreement with you that ‘State Aristocracy’ as English
expression for Riyasati Ashrafiya is more appropriate than ‘State elites’.

It is the rule of law alone which hinders
the rulers from turning themselves into the worst gangsters.

[Ludwig
von Mises, Austrian Economist, 1881-1973]

He
was born in Pakistan,
and was brought up for public life by the military elite of Pakistan. He
was a businessman turned into a politician by them. He was corrupt, laundered
his illegal money. He was a liar who concealed the facts, didn’t speak the
whole truth. He was a weak person who could not tolerate the dark dungeons he
was put into by his regime’s over-throwers. He compromised his staying in his
own country for an exile. All these ‘allegations’ may or may not be true. But he
was a twice-elected prime minister of Pakistan. Does it matter? No! What
matters is: wasn’t he a citizen of Pakistan? He was and is still a
bona fide citizen of Pakistan.

His
case is typically a Pakistani one. First, it involves ethical standards.
Second, it pertains to the domain of law. Third, it overarches the political
boundaries.

Had
he shown any regard for his benefactors with whom he is stated to be in a
certain understanding, or had he had any moral substance not to defy the
understanding he talks about, be it written or verbal, with any individual or
authority as is stated, he would not have been in such an unfortunate position!
Regardless of the facts and sure we don’t know would they ever be made public, what
we know for sure is that there was a certain understanding between the three
parties: the then rulers of Pakistan,
the Saudi ruling family, and he and his family. All of his acts and behavior
related with his homecoming weaken his position. No doubt, he should have abided
by the deal that saved his and his family’s skin. Propriety demands that he
should have stayed outside Pakistan
till the completion of ten years’ terms as agreed on paper. He was morally
bound to keep the word. But he didn’t, and damaged his moral stature.

It
may be argued that it concerns his person only as it was up to him to behave or
not to behave morally. But, as he is a public personality, a politician, a
leader of a political party, he cannot be absolved in such a manner. It is for
the people, before whom he is accountable, to judge and censure his person and
personality. The government has nothing to do with his moral standing. Yeah,
his adversaries are free to take political mileage out of his lapses.

However,
if he told a lie before the court, or concealed the truth or told the half
truth, it is for the court to take cognizance of this act of him. It needs to
be mentioned here that since he himself knocked at the court’s door for justice,
the court is authorized to take up his lying and its implications for its
judgment that provided him relief. What is important here is to differentiate
between those moral lapses which are not cognizable offence, and those which
are. If he would have lied in public about his deal or about the details of
this deal, or defied his understanding with the two other parties, and not
approached the court, the case has simply been a moral one, and only earned a bad
name to him. Sure, it was not cognizable and thereby not punishable either in
that case.

It
means that law and morality are two different domains. No doubt, he lost in the
domain of morals. But in the domain of law, his case is strong enough. The deal
or understanding that the three parties reached was brought to the court also,
and was dismissed outrightly. It must have been. Common sense has it that any
deal, agreement or understanding is done between more than one parties. The one
that is signed by one party only is merely a promise to one’s own self, or to
other parties. It has only moral validity. It can never attain a legal status. It
was probably on this ground that he came to the court, and the court maintained
his petition.

Also,
particularly in his case, the law of the land is supreme. When the said deal
was settled, written and signed, the aggrieved party was under sentence. Even
if it is maintained that the deal was done freely and willingly, under no
duress, and it was to his and his family’s obvious benefit, probably no court
of law would admit it as evidence. The fact of his being in the custody of
those with whom he reached the deal is enough evidence to invalidate any
written deal, agreement or understanding regardless of the signatures put on it
either by one or two or all the parties. Suppose, any court of law would have been
approached by all the parties for signing it before the court to endow it with
a legal status, had the court allowed such a thing is out of question.

Another
important point that is being made and raised by many convinces one of the
supremacy of the law of the land. It is that no agreement contrary to the
fundamental rights ensured in the Constitution of Pakistan can be contracted.
These rights have an over-riding quality to them. More than that, the said deal
contracted both an unconstitutional and an unlawful ‘demand’ on the part of the
aggrieved party: that they would live in exile for a specified period of time. So
the deal that was from its very beginning illegal holds no water at this moment
also.

When
taken on its face value, the deal states that it be kept confidential. But after
the filing of a petition by the aggrieved party in the Supreme Court, the
government made the deal public by submitting its copies before the court. It
was the first breach of what was government of Pakistan also morally bound to
abide by. But morals of the government are never a subject of discussion. Only
the morals of its functionaries matter, and they are always utterly immoral, and
more so in the absence of rule of law. We judge government only in terms of the
provisions of the Constitution and law of the country.

Thus
the whole case hinges on the point of law. That amounts to saying that since it
pertains to the domain of law, it must be viewed in that light first and
foremost. That the highest court of the country has already judged that it is
an inalienable right of every citizen of Pakistan to come and remain in Pakistan, and
likewise it was his constitutional right to come, remain and live in Pakistan. He
was not refused visa by the visa consulate of Pakistan, and was thus not having
recourse to a court to enter Pakistan.
If he were not a citizen of Pakistan, the court must never have entertained
such a petition.

The
judgment of the court was a lawful boost to his plans whatsoever they were. It
was no business of the court to see why he wanted to come to Pakistan. But
the civilian-cum-military government was wary of his political plans whatsoever
they were. Our concern is that whether the government honored the judgment of
the apex court or not. Even the court would not be divulging in digging up the
reasons; rather they would only be determining whether the judgment was honored
and implemented or not.

Now,
as the circumstances suggest, even if he, while in Saudi Arabia, submits or is
forced to submit an affidavit in the court to the effect that he did go to
Saudi Arabia willingly and is submitting this affidavit under no duress, will
it be admissible to the court is a matter of no debate. The facts of the matter
are so known by way of eye-witnesses, video-films, TV footages, etc, that it is
already established unequivocally that his was an unwilling throwing out of Pakistan. So
his kidnapping/deporting to Saudi
Arabia is a flagrant violation of the highest
court’s judgment. As the judgment derives its validity from an article of the
Constitution, the Article 15, his kidnapping/deporting is in fact a defiance
and insubordination of the Constitution.

Also,
as his case overarches the political boundaries, and as it involves the ruling
kings and princes of another country who seem to play an active role in his
kidnapping/deporting, it further complicates the issues. First, whether that
deal, the nature of which was discussed above in detail, allows another country’s
government to indulge in such an act! Second, whether that deal permits our
government to behave like this! This raises another question of paramount importance:
which law other than the Constitution of Pakistan is supreme in and for
Pakistan?

Before
coming to these questions, the issue of sovereignty may be dealt with briefly. It’s
being pointed out that the uncalled for role of Saudi government has dented Pakistan’s
sovereignty. That it was a blatant interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan and
that too at the behest of Pakistani government. For one, if it is at the behest
of Pakistani government, it’s no interference, then. But, is that so simple? In
case of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where there is no constitution or higher law
and where the will of the rulers is the law of the land, it may have been so
simple and a non-issue. Not for us in Pakistan. We have a constitution
here. No matter how imperfectly it is implemented, it is there, and dictators
too ultimately come to it to take refuge and salvage their ships.

What
is sovereignty? Generally, it is exercise of authority by a government of an
independent state free from external control. Without going into the details of
this handy definition, it may be asserted that both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia
are independent states. As far as the exercising of their authority is
concerned, it is determined by the law of the land. Or by tradition as is the
case with Saudi Arabia
where authority is exercised by the royal family. Their authority is absolute
in that no law defines or limits it. But in case of Pakistan, the rulers in government
derive their authority from the Constitution. It defines and limits their
powers. The rulers in Pakistan, whatever is their brand, have no absolute
authority.

Hence,
for Pakistan
the issue of sovereignty is the issue of the supremacy of the Constitution. If
the government abrogates the Constitution, the sovereignty will be lost to the
whims of the rulers. Thus, the Constitution of Pakistan provides us with a
point of reference to see whether in his case of kidnapping/deporting to Saudi
Arabia the sovereignty of Pakistan was staked or not.

No
sane person would allow himself to disbelieve that a certain citizen of Pakistan was
allowed to be kidnapped/deported to another country. Of course, to achieve its
ulterior motives Pakistani government acted very enthusiastically. Leave aside
the intricacies of sovereignty’s definition; it is evident that the sovereignty
of Pakistan
was challenged by the country’s own government when it defied the orders of the
highest court and violated the Constitution of the country. Not only that, it
invited another government to do the same.

Once
again, whatever is the status of that deal of his - was it supreme to the
Constitution of Pakistan? Firstly, is that deal so overriding that in order to
fulfill the demands of that deal the officials of another country are free to
take back a citizen of Pakistan to their country about whom the Supreme Court
of Pakistan had already made a seven-member judgment to let him come and remain
in Pakistan? Is that deal based on such an international law that abrogates the
higher laws of independent states and allows taking back of citizens of a
country by any country even in the absence of mutual extradition treaties?

Secondly,
does that deal give any legal, constitutional leverage to the government of Pakistan to let
another country to take back its citizens without having their consents or
without fulfilling the legal requirements while no mutual extradition treaty is
in force? No, simply not. In Pakistan
the supreme law is its Constitution. Legally speaking, no deal, agreement, or
contract can be made which is directly or indirectly violative of the provisions
of the Constitution and fundamental rights ensured in it. Its violation means
the violation of Pakistan’s
sovereignty. But how unfortunate that the deal that Nawaz Sharif and brother
reached has been made so sacred that to save it the government of Pakistan has
staked everything, be it the Supreme Court’s judgment, Constitution of the
country, or the sovereignty of Pakistan!
Isn’t Pakistan
heading to be another Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia?

Mostly it’s like a rule that
the issue a government and its functionaries spend a lot of time on is no issue
at all. Drone attacks over the Pakistani territory and the zeal of the
government of Pakistan from its top political and military leadership to the
parliament should be treated likewise. Indeed, everyone whether he is in the
government or outside it, whether he is an ordinary citizen like me or a
special dignitary like Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister who are sitting
over the public exchequer of Pakistan, all (and sundry) are stormily concerned
about the sovereignty of Pakistan being damaged by these Drone attacks. But let
me confess I am one of those few (if any) who are least concerned and who
consider it no issue. That is what this article intends to argue about.

Our government is a declared
ally of the US government in the war against terrorists including those who
planned 9/11, abetted, aided and executed it, who still support their terrorism,
and who intend to go for such acts in future also, who are based on the Afghani
and Pakistani soil, and are using it to launch more 9/11s. So in that case, it’s
of no significance whose Drones they are and whose territory they are
targeting. It’s the common war and certainly the targets too are common. Then
why that fuss? Especially by Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, and a specific
brand of Pakistanis in whose eyes a country is just a piece of land and whose
sovereignty consists only in its territoriality.

Recently when I asked a friend
of mine who is lawyer, so, can you tell me, legally constitutionally, does
Pakistan exist; I repeat: does Pakistan exist legally constitutionally, he was
just numb. He had no answer.

History tells us there have
been conquerors/adventurers eager of establishing their principalities over
this much or that much territory. Or imagine the days of the fall and decline
of Mughal empire. There were war lords, who occupied a piece of territory and
ruled there, or they maintained bands of fighters and to sustain them they used
to ambush the territory of another weaker war lord, or they used to sell their
loyalties to whomever bade the highest price. It was that way of the powerful
where sovereignty was the greatest thing to be protected at any cost. Simply
because it was a symbol of one’s rule and power and of course in the last
resort it yielded booty/revenue.

That’s the story of
territorial sovereignty we the ordinary people are still nostalgic about. (How
can we forget how our army defended our territorial sovereignty in 1970 in the
Eastern wing and what was its outcome!) What it means for the extra-ordinary
people like Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister not clear but that they are
beating about the bush by harping uselessly on the theme of sovereignty is
obvious. That’s all misleading!

The world we live today is a
world of legality and constitutionality. When a new country emerges on the map
of the world, regardless of the manner in which it comes into being, e.g. how
Bangladesh was founded, its first urge is to attain legally constitutionally justified
status and then to be admitted into the comity of nations as a legally
constitutionally existing country. A negative example explains it well: in case
Taliban after assuming full control of some of the areas on the borders of
Afghanistan and Pakistan declare the setting up of a state until and unless it
has no legal constitutional status there is no chance of its being given the
same status by the international community and admitted into the UNO as well,
its existence will remain mired in uncertainty.

With these points in focus,
we should know that today territorial sovereignty is somewhere at the bottom of
the list. On top of the list is the legal constitutional status of a country
that endows it with its real sovereignty.

This legal constitutional
sovereignty is in fact an internal phenomenon. It gives a tract of land and a
population of individual persons inhabiting that tract a name and identity, and
the form of a country. However, most of all, it ensures those individual
persons protection of their life, their property and their rights/freedoms as
the citizens of that country. Otherwise that legal constitutional sovereignty
is just meaningless, and is but the rule of thugs. Ah, who can refute that even
thugs provide their subjects protection of life and property!

To quote St. Augustine here
is more than relevant who says: ‘Set aside justice, then, and what are kingdoms
but great bands of brigands? For what are brigands' bands but little kingdoms?
For in brigandage the hands of the underlings are directed by the commander,
the confederacy of them is sworn together, and the pillage is shared by law
among them. And if those ragamuffins grow up to be able enough to keep forts,
build habitations, possess cities, and conquer adjoining nations, then their
government is no longer called brigandage, but graced with the eminent name of
a kingdom, given and gotten not because they have left their practices but
because they use them without danger of law.’ (City of God, Book IV)

That’s what ultimately
sovereignty amounts to: provision of justice which implies protection of life
and property and importantly the fundamental rights/freedoms to individual
persons. In this context, injustice is the absence of these protections.
Probably that is why in their specific dominions goons too protect life and
property (if not fundamental rights) of those people who live under them from
other invading goons. That is the essence of a sovereign country and the sovereignty
of a country. That is why legality constitutionality matters so much in today’s
world. It ensures individual persons their fundamental rights and inalienable
freedoms, in addition to protection to their life and property.

Internally that sovereignty
is a collection of sovereign individuals whose life, property and
rights/freedoms are ensured by legality and constitutionality of a country.
Externally the sovereignty of that country embodies in its territorial
boundaries and the nature of that sovereignty merely consists not only in
safeguarding the physical borders but that is all meant to protect life,
property and thus rights/freedoms of those individual persons also who live
inside those physical borders from the invaders. That sums up our argument:
sovereignty derives from sovereign individuals and reverts to them.

Where do we stand vis-à-vis
that sovereignty? It was quite after 60 years that we came to have a rule of
law movement which probably first time in the history of Pakistan brought the
issue of fundamental rights to the fore. Astonishingly prior to that there
existed no such issue in the political discourse in Pakistan; and surely there
was no rule of law and independent judiciary either. Ironically as that movement popularized, more
fundamental than fundamental rights, the issue of protection of life and
property started burning up the country. So fight for your life first, then for
your property, and go forget your fundamental rights you wretched of this earth!
That’s the message of the Pakistani state to its individual citizens! Loud and clear!

Under these circumstances,
listening to the headship of our state talking of sovereignty is just
nauseating. Already they were sickening in their parasitic appetite; their treacherous
acts have made their existence loathsome. They are the rot of this land ruling
and spoiling this land. From people to institutions, they have defied
everything that elevated them to their position. The constitution that gave
them a legal and constitutional status and distinguished them from St.
Augustine’s brigands’ bands, they have trashed that constitution into a dustbin
of their perverted interests.

By setting aside both the legal
constitutional chief justice and justice, they have turned Pakistan ‘into a kingdom
of brigands' bands. For what are brigands' bands but little kingdoms? For in
brigandage the hands of the underlings are directed by the commander, the
confederacy of them is sworn together, and the pillage is shared by law among
them.’

That’s Pakistan and that’s
its sovereignty. From FATA and Swat to Karachi we the ordinary citizens are at
the mercy of this or that band of brigands. We are sovereign individuals though
our sovereignty has already been slaughtered verily by those who were its custodians.
What if a sovereign individual is killed by a brigand or by a bomb dropped by a
Drone! What if a sovereign individual is coerced by a local or a foreign goon
or the state itself into subservience to this or that ideology! He is already
in limbo forsaken by the Pakistani state!

The Blogger

The blogger cherishes a cosmopolitan spirit; he is a moralist; a rationalist; a philosopher; a political philosopher; he believes in Classical Liberalism, as a Theory of Conduct.
He has substantially contributed to the founding of the first free market think tank of Pakistan, Alternate Solutions Institute.
He is a writer who wrote / published dozens of articles on a variety of issues, and is author of 4 books.
He wrote / published short-stories in Punjabi, a regional language of Pakistan.
He composes poetry both in Urdu and Punjabi, and has already published one collection.